Barry Bonds indicted

[Mondogarage]

[ QUOTE ]
the federal government doesn't have anything approaching sufficient evidence to convict bonds. are you [censored] kidding me? why would they have kept his trainer in jail all that time trying to get him to crack? do you really think bonds didn't talk to his lawyer before he testified and say, "if they decide to try and prosecute me for this, will it stick? is this perjury?" does anyone REALLY think these charges are legit?

if you do please PM me with your screen name so i can change your title to 'dumbest [censored] hick ever'

[/ QUOTE ]

Your level of ignorance of how the federal criminal justice system works is astounding.

Before you decide to equate the federal prosecutor in this case to that local hick Nifong in the Duke lacrosse case, I suggest you do a bit of research on the DOJ's conviction rate. The feds don't indict unless they have more than a reasonable certainty of evidence to convict.

That certainly does not mean they automatically win. The indictment does not lay all their cards on the table.

I don't know whether he's guilty or not; I do know the feds aren't simply throwing stuff at the wall to see if anything sticks.

[Pudge714]

[ QUOTE ]
The feds don't indict unless they have more than a reasonable certainty of evidence to convict.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe I just have a bad memory, but you think someone would have brought that up in the 29032093092 threads about Bonds when RedBean's argument was largely based on a lack of indictment.

[Mondogarage]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The feds don't indict unless they have more than a reasonable certainty of evidence to convict.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe I just have a bad memory, but you think someone would have brought that up in the 29032093092 threads about Bonds when RedBean's argument was largely based on a lack of indictment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of us know better than to bait RedBean, and would just as soon wait for the feds to either indict, or not indict.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
people tend to ignore these facts, and with good reason. if testimony is so important to the u.s. justice system, then where is niss/oski's outrage over illegally leaked testimony and the concept of privacy?

[/ QUOTE ]

This comment also got me to thinking a bit: At least in the reporters' case, there was an understandable reason for their disobedience and it has to do with the code of ethics of reporting versus divluging their sources. I think they both took a stand for what they believed to be the greater good: jounalistic integrity. In any event, they did obstruct justice and they were prepared to pay the consequences.

On the other hand, Bonds had a conflict with what? Telling the truth versus lying?

[RedBean]

HEY GUYS!

My trip got slightly delayed because...um...something kinda came up. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

So, what's going on new around here?

How 'bout that A-rod contract, huh?

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
the federal government doesn't have anything approaching sufficient evidence to convict bonds. are you [censored] kidding me? why would they have kept his trainer in jail all that time trying to get him to crack? do you really think bonds didn't talk to his lawyer before he testified and say, "if they decide to try and prosecute me for this, will it stick? is this perjury?" does anyone REALLY think these charges are legit?

if you do please PM me with your screen name so i can change your title to 'dumbest [censored] hick ever'

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm down. I'm down for rock climbing. Put me down.

I would tend to think the charges are legit, so change my title to what ever you see fit. I don't know what the government has, or hasn't, but I do know that they took a lot of time and were very careful about bringing this indictment. Just based on that alone, I think there is substance to these charges.

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]

This comment also got me to thinking a bit: At least in the reporters' case, there was an understandable reason for their disobedience and it has to do with the code of ethics of reporting versus divluging their sources. I think they both took a stand for what they believed to be the greater good: jounalistic integrity. In any event, they did obstruct justice and they were prepared to pay the consequences.

On the other hand, Bonds had a conflict with what? Telling the truth versus lying?

[/ QUOTE ]

right, because those journalists didn't stand to, like, make any money or anything by profiting from a book of illegally leaked testimony.

[Billy Bibbit]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The feds don't indict unless they have more than a reasonable certainty of evidence to convict.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe I just have a bad memory, but you think someone would have brought that up in the 29032093092 threads about Bonds when RedBean's argument was largely based on a lack of indictment.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have a horse in this fight, but if the federal government doesn't indict people without a rock-solid case then why did they already try and fail to indict him before?

[offTopic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The feds don't indict unless they have more than a reasonable certainty of evidence to convict.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe I just have a bad memory, but you think someone would have brought that up in the 29032093092 threads about Bonds when RedBean's argument was largely based on a lack of indictment.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have a horse in this fight,

[/ QUOTE ]

mixed metaphor in lieu of Michael Vick case LDO

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This comment also got me to thinking a bit: At least in the reporters' case, there was an understandable reason for their disobedience and it has to do with the code of ethics of reporting versus divluging their sources. I think they both took a stand for what they believed to be the greater good: jounalistic integrity. In any event, they did obstruct justice and they were prepared to pay the consequences.

On the other hand, Bonds had a conflict with what? Telling the truth versus lying?

[/ QUOTE ]

right, because those journalists didn't stand to, like, make any money or anything by profiting from a book of illegally leaked testimony.

[/ QUOTE ]

A reporter reports. A reporter reports and protects its sources. If the source happened to obtain the testimony illegally or if that source has a duty to keep that testimony confidential ... is not an issue for the reporter.